JRSR 11 (2024) 127-131

Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences and Research

Journal Home Page: jrsr.sums.ac.ir

Original Article

Exploring the Impact of Bilingualism on Semantic and Phonological

Neuropsychological Tasks in Adults

Seyede Zohre Mousavi1, PhD; Azar Mehri2*, PhD; Saman Maroufizadeh3, PhD

Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
1

Department of Speech Therapy, Rehabilitation School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2

Department of Biostatistics, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
3

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History: Background: Numerous studies have yielded conflicting results concerning
Received: 03/08/2022 the disparities in verbal (semantic and letter) fluency between monolingual and
Revised: 12/02/2023 bilingual individuals. Given the linguistic variations among bilinguals and the
Accepted: 21/10/2023
influence of cultural differences on language, this study examined verbal fluency
in Kurdish and Azari bilinguals and compared it with that of Farsi monolinguals.
Keywords:
Bilingualism Methods: This cross-sectional study involved 30 Farsi monolingual students,
Letter fluency 28 Kurdish-Farsi bilinguals, and 29 Azari-Farsi bilinguals. The study utilized
Neuropsychological test semantic (fruits and animals) and letter fluency tasks (/f/, /a/, and /s/). Each
Semantic fluency bilingual participant was instructed to perform the verbal fluency tasks twice:
Verbal fluency once in their native language and once in Farsi.
Please cite this article as: Results: In both fluency tasks, bilinguals demonstrated superior performance
Mousavi SZ, Mehri A, Maroufizadeh S. in Farsi compared to their mother languages (Azari and Kurdish) (P<0.001).
Exploring the Impact of Bilingualism Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between bilinguals and
on Semantic and Phonological
Neuropsychological Tasks in Adults. monolinguals in the formal language of their community (Farsi).
JRSR. 2024;11(3):127-131. doi: 10.30476/ Conclusion: The formal language in Iran (Farsi) predominates among bilingual
JRSR.2023.96323.1312.
individuals. This is likely because the educational system and formal writing
are conducted in Farsi. Bilinguals typically use their native language only for
conversations within their native context and with their peers.
2024© The Authors. Published by JRSR. All rights reserved.

Introduction considered significant in definitions of bilingualism [3].

According to Bloomfield, a bilingual individual can use
Bilingualism is defined in various ways across or control two languages like a native speaker. However,
different sources. Bilingual individuals differ in their this definition can be influenced by varying degrees of
usage of the two languages. Most studies categorize language proficiency in each language, especially in
bilingual individuals based on their acquisition age and cases of imbalanced bilingualism. Bilingualism can
proficiency level in both languages [1]. According to be categorized into different types, such as early and
Hoffman, bilingualism implies speaking both languages late bilingualism, based on the age of second language
equally fluently in any given situation. However, another acquisition (Cohen, 1976). Early bilingualism refers to
definition of bilingualism encompasses using a second acquiring a second language during childhood, while
language in real-life scenarios [2]. Factors such as the late bilingualism pertains to learning a second language
age of second language acquisition, the style of learning after age 7. Grosjean, Nelson, and Harris reported that
the second language, and patterns of language use are at least half of the world’s population is bilingual [1].
As stated in Ethnologue, in Iran, the population of
*Corresponding author: Azar Mehri, PhD; Department of Speech Therapy, bilinguals speaking the languages under study in this
School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Pich-e-
Shemiran, Enghelab Ave, P.O. Box: 11489-65141, Tehran, Iran. Tel/Fax: research consists of 10,900,000 Azerbaijani speakers and
+98 21 77636042; Email: mehri@tums.ac.ir 5,590,000 Kurdish speakers [4].
 Mousavi SZ et al.
In numerous studies, vocabulary stimuli have been Methods
utilized to investigate the degree of linguistic dependence
in the lexical storage systems of bilinguals. To examine Participants
bilingual performance in vocabulary, it is essential to This cross-sectional study, conducted from 2014 to
select an appropriate task that can highlight the differences 2016, involved 30 Farsi monolingual, 28 Kurdish-
between various interdependent languages [3]. Semantic Farsi bilingual, and 29 Azari-Farsi bilingual students
and letter verbal fluency tasks can assess word naming from Tehran University of Medical Sciences. There
in specific categories or words beginning with specific is no definitive tool for determining the degree of
letters. Various studies have reported conflicting results bilingualism in bilingual studies. Therefore, self-rating
regarding the differences in verbal fluency between has been suggested as one of the most useful and
monolingual and bilingual individuals. However, the effective assessment tools. In this method, subjects rate
findings in other languages remain controversial; the their comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing
results obtained among bilinguals are highly valued abilities on a five or 7-point scale in both languages
compared to those among monolinguals. [19, 20]. In our study, bilingual participants were asked
It has been reported that semantic fluency is better in to rate their proficiency in a second language from 1 to
bilinguals than monolinguals in some cases [5, 6], while in 5. Participants who scored three or more on proficiency
other instances, it is lower in bilinguals [7-10]. Regarding [8] were included in the study. The inclusion criteria for
letter fluency, bilinguals may outperform monolinguals both groups were: 1) no history of head injury, tumor,
[10, 11], although some studies have found no difference epilepsy, stroke, or other neurological diseases, 2) no
between the two groups [5, 9]. Several studies have history of psychiatric disorders, 3) no history of sensory
investigated the effects of demographic factors on disorders such as hearing and vision problems, 4) age
vocabulary level, i.e., verbal fluency, in bilinguals between 18-30 years old, 5) at least one year of university
regardless of the type of bilingualism [12-14]. For instance, education, 6) being an undergraduate or postgraduate
age and level of education are influential factors in semantic student, and for bilingual subjects, having proficiency in
fluency, with age being particularly significant [13]. both languages (obtaining a score of 3 or more in the self-
Performance is influenced more by gender, age [15], and rating questionnaire).
level of education than by language [9, 12, 16]. However, All ethical principles were considered in this study. The
other findings suggest a greater effect of language on verbal current study was approved by the Tehran University of
fluency [6]. Letter fluency, particularly clustering, is linked Medical Sciences (91-03-125-19326)
to language acquisition and education, while semantic
fluency, especially clustering, is associated with age [14]. Materials and Task
Another study found no correlation between the age of In this study, both semantic and letter fluency tasks were
acquisition and verbal fluency [17]. Chomsky’s theories utilized. For semantic fluency, the subject was asked
and hypotheses on language acquisition are grounded in the to name categories of fruits and animals. In contrast,
advanced mechanisms of the brain. Chomsky posits that for letter fluency, the subject was asked to name words
humans have inherent linguistic capabilities or ‘switches’ beginning with the three letters /f/, /a/, and /s/ within one
that allow them to learn languages by adhering to rules. It minute. It should be noted that each bilingual subject was
is thought that individuals can switch between languages asked to fill out the consent form and then perform the
depending on their usage. Given the inconsistencies in the verbal fluency tasks twice (once in their native language
findings, the differences between languages in bilinguals, and once in Farsi) in a random order. In bilingual subjects,
and the influence of cultural differences on language, L1 refers to the native language (i.e., Kurdish and Azari),
the present study investigated verbal fluency in Kurdish and L2 refers to the Farsi language; all monolingual
and Azari bilinguals (L1). This was based on common subjects spoke Farsi. All subjects’ responses were
bilingual hypotheses [18] and aimed to determine and recorded in both languages and subsequently analyzed by
compare the performance of verbal fluency in bilinguals speech therapists who were experts in those languages.
in their native (L1) and formal languages (L2). Differences A native Kurdish and a native Turkish Speech-Language
in the vocabulary level between these languages have Pathologist (SLP) conducted the tests and collected the
led researchers to investigate whether Kurdish-Farsi samples. Both were postgraduates.
bilinguals, Azari-Farsi bilinguals, and Farsi monolinguals The Shapiro-Wilk test was utilized to verify the normal
perform similarly in semantic and letter categories. The distribution of the data. The Mann-Whitney U test was
current study has potential implications for researchers used to compare monolingual and bilingual subjects’
in this field, especially in our country, where a significant semantic and letter fluency. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test
portion of the population is bilingual. Aside from its was applied to compare Kurdish and Azari with Farsi
research implications, the findings can also be applied in among bilinguals. The data were analyzed using SPSS
the clinical domain, specifically for bilingual individuals software, version 16. A p-value of less than .05 was
who have experienced brain damage. This is because considered statistically significant.
the results provide insights into the proficiency levels of
bilingual individuals in their first and second languages. In Results
this study, bilingual students learned their native language
(L1) first, which is their mother tongue. Subsequently, they In this study, 87 subjects participated, including 30
learned Farsi as their second language (L2). monolingual (Farsi) and 57 bilingual (Kurdish and Azari)

128 JRSR. 2024;11(3)

 The effect of bilingualism on verbal fluency in adults

individuals. The participants comprised 45 males and 42 (for monolingual speakers) were higher than those in
females with a mean age of 20.99±1.11 years. There was no bilingual speakers’ second language (L2). However, these
significant difference in age (P=0.932), gender (P=0.902), differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05).
and the time spent after entering the university (P=0.375)
between the two groups- bilinguals and monolinguals. -Comparison of Semantic and Letter Fluency in L1
between Bilinguals and Monolinguals
- Comparison of Semantic and Letter Fluency in L1 and There was a significant difference in the mean semantic
L2 of Monolinguals and Bilinguals fluency in the first language (L1) between the groups
Figures 1 and 2 present the findings related to verbal (H(2)=40.72, P<0.001). Dunn’s post-hoc test revealed
fluency, both semantic and letter fluency, in L1 and L2 that the mean score of semantic fluency in native Farsi
of bilingual and monolingual subjects. These figures speakers (monolinguals) was significantly higher than
indicate a lower mean semantic and letter fluency for that in the first language of Kurdish and Azari individuals
bilinguals than for monolinguals. (bilinguals) (P<0.05). Additionally, the mean semantic
fluency in the first language of Kurdish individuals was
- Comparison of Semantic and Letter Fluency between significantly higher than that in the first language of Azari
L1 and L2 in Bilinguals individuals (P<0.05).
The results demonstrated that the mean values for Regarding letter fluency, a significant difference
the number of recalled fruits and animals, as well as was also observed between the first languages (L1) of
overall semantic fluency in the first language (L1), the groups (Farsi, Kurdish, and Azari) (H(2)=31.19,
were significantly different compared to the second P<0.001). However, no significant difference was found
language (L2) in bilinguals (P<0.001). A similar trend in the mean semantic fluency in the first language of the
was observed for letter fluency (P<0.001), except for two bilingual groups (Kurdish and Azari) (P>0.05).
the number of words beginning with /s/ among Azari
speakers (Table 1). Discussion

-Comparison of Semantic and Letter Fluency in Farsi Despite differences in vocabulary levels among these
between Bilinguals and Monolinguals languages, the researchers aimed to determine whether
The mean values for semantic and letter fluency in Farsi Kurdish-Farsi and Azari-Farsi bilinguals and Farsi

Figure 1: Semantic and letter fluency averages in L1 (Kurdish and Figure 2: Semantic and letter fluency averages in L2 (Farsi) bilinguals
Azari) bilinguals and monolinguals and monolinguals

Table 1: Comparison of semantic and letter fluency mean scores between native language and Farsi language in bilingual subjects
Language P†
Native language L1* L2**
Fruit number Kurdish 12.43 (3.07) 14.21 (2.90) 0.006
Azeri 9.62 (4.40) 14.34 (4.45) >0.001
Animal number Kurdish 13.29 (3.85) 18.32 (4.80) >0.001
Azeri 11.38 (4.10) 18.79 (6.07) >0.001
Semantic fluency Kurdish 25.71 (6.16) 32.53 (6.44) >0.001
Azeri 21.00 (6.82) 33.13 (9.73) >0.001
/f/ number Kurdish 4.89 (2.60) 8.00 (2.98) >0.001
Azeri 3.21 (2.73) 9.07 (3.38) >0.001
/a/ number Kurdish 5.14 (2.15) 9.39 (4.00) >0.001
Azeri 7.52 (2.35) 9.34 (3.34) 0.032
/s/ number Kurdish 7.29 (2.80) 9.82 (4.19) 0.003
Azeri 7.86 (2.68) 9.83 (3.44) 0.055
letter fluency Kurdish 17.32 (6.24) 27.21 (8.87) >0.001
Azeri 18.58 (5.84) 28.24 (8.59) >0.001
*L1: native language; **L2: Farsi language; Values are shown as “(standard deviation) mean score”; †Wilcoxon rank-sum test
JRSR. 2024;11(3) 129
 Mousavi SZ et al.
monolinguals perform similarly or differently in word formal language of their community (Farsi language).
retrieval across semantic and letter categories. In this Bilingualism could not differentiate performance in
study, we attempted to control for certain influential semantic and letter fluency tasks. This finding is consistent
demographic factors. Consequently, an equal number of with those obtained on semantic fluency in the study by
bilinguals of both genders and types were selected from Luo et al. [11] and is also in line with those obtained on
two academic levels, each with a self-assessment score letter fluency in the studies by Portocarrero et al. [7] and
higher than average (above 3 out of 5 points) in second Roberts et al. [22]. These studies also found no difference
language proficiency. However, the findings obtained in the two verbal fluency tasks in their bilingual studies.
between the two languages were highly controversial However, other studies have pointed to these differences
compared to monolinguals. These findings are discussed and reported that bilingual subjects recalled fewer words
in the following sections. than monolinguals in verbal fluency tasks, and the
Verbal fluency is often impaired in various disorders, difference between monolinguals and bilinguals was
particularly neurological ones. Therefore, addressing this greater in semantic fluency [8, 10]. Blumenfeld et al.
ability can improve other aspects of speech and language. stated that verbal fluency has similar patterns and more
In several studies, single-word stimuli have been utilized words in semantic fluency tasks than letter fluency tasks
to assess the degree of linguistic dependence in bilinguals’ in the dominant language (English) of monolingual and
vocabulary storage systems [3]. Consequently, to evaluate bilingual Spanish-English speakers [23].
bilinguals’ performance at the vocabulary level, selecting Generally, these differences may be due to the type
appropriate tasks highlighting the differences between of bilingualism, age of acquisition of two languages,
various interdependent languages is crucial. learning style of two languages, level of education,
amount of language usage for two languages, and the
- Comparison of L1 and L2 of Monolinguals and differences between the languages.
Bilinguals
There is a significant difference in semantic and -Comparison of L1 between Bilinguals and Monolinguals
letter fluency between bilinguals (Azari-Farsi and As previously mentioned, the results showed that
Kurdish-Farsi) across their two languages. However, in all verbal fluency tasks, monolinguals performed
monolinguals and bilinguals did not differ in the Farsi significantly better in Farsi than Azari-Farsi and
language. Notably, these two fluency tasks in the native Kurdish-Farsi bilinguals did in their mother language.
language showed a significant difference between the This is largely attributed to the dominance of the formal
two groups. Specifically, monolinguals outperformed spoken and written language over the mother language of
bilinguals (Azari-Farsi and Kurdish-Farsi) in their native bilinguals, which can influence the number of words they
languages. speak. When a speaker lives in a bilingual environment
or uses a second language frequently, the vocabulary,
- Comparison of L1 and L2 in Bilinguals phonology, and prosody are influenced by the second
In response to the question of how bilinguals perform language [1].
in both semantic and letter fluency tasks in Farsi and Regarding demographic characteristics, the results
their mother language (i.e., Azari or Kurdish), the showed no significant differences between the two genders
results generally indicated that bilinguals performed and different ages in the semantic and letter fluency of
better in Farsi than in their mother language (Azari and monolinguals and bilinguals in both languages. This
Kurdish) in both fluency tasks. This behavior can be finding contradicts the studies investigating the effect of
attributed to these individuals’ formal and educational gender, age, and level of education in bilinguals [13-15].
language. Bilinguals use their mother language more Therefore, this discrepancy between results may be due
for verbal communication within their community, to differences in sample size, age range, exposure age to
while they use the Farsi language for both verbal and the second language, and second language acquisition.
written communication at the university [21]. Based on For Azari-Farsi and Kurdish-Farsi bilinguals in Iranian
the present study’s findings, students reported a higher society, their bilingualism appears to be rooted in the
preference for using their native language for verbal patterns of language use. This allows them to easily switch
communication. Therefore, it can be inferred that the between two languages in all situations or use a language
formal written language can influence their native only in specific places, situations, or with specific people.
language. Various bilingual studies have shown that As a result, these individuals develop their particular
bilinguals usually have separate written-verbal systems language skills in one language. For example, they learn
[5-8]. However, in the Iranian population, bilinguals did reading, writing, speaking, comprehension, translation,
not have a separate written and formal language system and interpretation in Farsi (the formal language of their
in their native language for communication. country). At the same time, they may use another language
(their mother language, namely Azari and Kurdish) only
-Comparison of Farsi between Bilinguals and to communicate verbally with people in their community.
Monolinguals Accordingly, different aspects of one language are used
Bilinguals did not significantly differ in semantic and in this context.
letter fluency tasks compared to monolinguals. This Most studies have pointed out that language skills vary
indicates that bilinguals (Azari-Farsi, Kurdish-Farsi) in bilinguals. Therefore, verbal fluency in each language
and monolinguals (Farsi) perform similarly in the should be studied separately as one of the executive

130 JRSR. 2024;11(3)

 The effect of bilingualism on verbal fluency in adults

function tasks. However, some studies have confirmed 3. Albert ML, Obler LK. The Bilingual Brain: Neuropsychological
and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism. Perspectives in
that if there is high proficiency in both languages, this
Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics.1978.
function can be studied only in one language [16]. 4. Fennig CD. Ethnologue: languages of Asia. SIL International
This presents one of the contradictions in the field of Publications; 2017.
bilingualism. 5. Taler V, Johns BT, Young K, Sheppard C, Jones MN. A
computational analysis of semantic structure in bilingual verbal
Finally, verbal (semantic-letter) fluency tasks in fluency performance. Journal of Memory and Language. 2013
bilinguals appear unsuitable for assessing their linguistic Nov 1;69(4):607-18.
ability. This ability is influenced by various factors 6. Wauters L, Marquardt TP. Category, letter, and emotional
verbal fluency in Spanish–English bilingual speakers: A
such as the degree of exposure to two languages, level preliminary report. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology; 2018
of language proficiency, and age of acquisition, among Jun;33(4):444-57.
others. Supporting this point, meta-analysis studies 7. Portocarrero JS, Burright RG, Donovick PJ. Vocabulary and verbal
fluency of bilingual and monolingual college students. Archives
have stated that bilingualism confers advantages in of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2007 Mar 1;22(3):415-22.
inhibition, shifting, and working memory tasks but not in 8. Rosselli M, Ardila A, Araujo K, Weekes VA, Caracciolo V, Padilla
monitoring or attention. Findings on verbal fluency tasks M, Ostrosky-Solí F. Verbal fluency and repetition skills in healthy
also revealed a bilingual disadvantage, likely due to less older Spanish-English bilinguals. Applied neuropsychology. 2000
Mar 1;7(1):17-24.
exposure to each language when both languages are used 9. Anderson JA, Saleemi S, Bialystok E. Neuropsychological
equally [24]. assessments of cognitive aging in monolingual and bilingual
Future studies should consider incorporating a older adults. Journal of neurolinguistics. 2017 Aug 1;43:17-27.
10. Gollan TH, Montoya RI, Werner GA. Semantic and letter
comprehensive analysis of verbal fluency in conjunction fluency in Spanish-English bilinguals. Neuropsychology. 2002
with other cognitive, linguistic, and executive functions. Oct;16(4):562.
Additionally, it would be intriguing to explore variations 11. Luo L, Luk G, Bialystok E. Effect of language proficiency and
executive control on verbal fluency performance in bilinguals.
in this function among different types of bilingual Cognition. 2010 Jan 1;114(1):29-41.
individuals, considering factors such as the age of 12. González HM, Mungas D, Haan MN. A semantic verbal fluency
language acquisition and methods of acquisition. test for English-and Spanish-speaking older Mexican-Americans.
Archives of clinical neuropsychology. 2005 Mar 1;20(2):199-208.
Researchers also recommend conducting analogous
13. Ostrosky-Solis F, Gutierrez AL, Flores MR, Ardila A. Same or
studies across various disorders in bilingual populations. different? Semantic verbal fluency across Spanish-speakers from
different countries. Archives of clinical neuropsychology. 2007
Conclusion Mar 1;22(3):367-77.
14. Poreh AM, Schweiger A. The effects of second-language
acquisition on verbal fluency among elderly Israelis. CNS
There was no difference in verbal fluency in the spectrums. 2002 May;7(5):377-86.
Farsi language between monolingual and bilingual 15. Malek A, Hekmati I, Amiri S, Pirzadeh J, Gholizadeh H. Designing
and standardization of Persian version of verbal fluency test
individuals. However, the two groups observed a among Iranian bilingual (Turkish-Persian) adolescents. Journal
significant difference in the mother tongue. The Farsi of Research in Clinical Medicine. 2013 Sep 6;1(1):32-42.
monolinguals outperformed the Azari-Farsi and 16. Bethlehem D, De Picciotto J, Watt N. Assessment of verbal fluency
in bilingual Zulu-English speakers. South African Journal of
Kurdish-Farsi bilinguals in their native language. The Psychology. 2003 Nov;33(4):236-40.
formal language in Iran (Farsi) appears to dominate the 17. de Picciotto J, Friedland D. Verbal fluency in elderly bilingual
language of bilingual individuals. This dominance is speakers: Normative data and preliminary application to
likely because the educational system conducts studies Alzheimer’s disease. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 2001
Apr 18;53(3):145-52.
and formal writing in Farsi. Bilinguals typically use 18. Schmidtke J. Second language experience modulates word
their native language only for conversations within their retrieval effort in bilinguals: evidence from pupillometry. Frontiers
native context and with peers. in psychology. 2014 Feb 21;5:65697.
19. Edmonds L, Kiran S. Confrontation naming and semantic
relatedness judgements in Spanish/English bilinguals.
Acknowledgments Aphasiology. 2004 Jun 1;18(5-7):567-79.
20. Fishman JA, Cooper RL. Alternative measures of bilingualism.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1969 Apr
We thank all participants in the present study, especially 1;8(2):276-82.
Negin Yuosefi, Fateme Shirzad, Sasan Fathi, and Shokufe 21. García O. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global
Reisi Ardeli, for their significant contributions. perspective. John Wiley & Sons;2011.
22. Roberts PM, Le Dorze G. Semantic organization, strategy use,
and productivity in bilingual semantic verbal fluency. Brain and
Conflict of Interest: None declared. language. 1997 Oct 1;59(3):412-49.
23. Blumenfeld HK, Bobb SC, Marian V. The role of language
References proficiency, cognate status and word frequency in the assessment
of Spanish–English bilinguals’ verbal fluency. International
journal of speech-language pathology. 2016 Mar 3;18(2):190-201.
1. Chapey R. Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related 24. Lehtonen M, Soveri A, Laine A, Järvenpää J, De Bruin A, Antfolk
neurogenic communication disorders. Filadelfia, Pensilvania: J. Is bilingualism associated with enhanced executive functioning
Lippincott williams and Wilkins Ed; 2001. in adults? A meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin. 2018
2. Cook V, Bassetti B, editors. Language and bilingual cognition. Apr;144(4):394.
Psychology Press; 2011.

JRSR. 2024;11(3) 131